Of the roughly 1,700 people who submitted online comments for the city’s survey, around 99% of those were negative. Comcast, as you might expect, denied that the survey's findings were accurate, and promised the Philadelphia city council that it would provide evidence proving as much.

Rosso notes that the questions were phrased in such a way as to generate positive responses to controversial programs like Comcast's Internet Essentials, a low-income broadband program we've noted as being intentionally restrictive and a bit of a PR show pony. Rosso says questions focused on Comcast's employment and tax record were also phrased in such a way as to generate limited or positive responses. Other locals well-versed in the practice of polling science agree that Comcast is up to no good:

"Chris Rabb, author of Invisible Capital: How Unseen Forces Shape Entrepreneurial Opportunity and a professor at Temple University’s Fox School of Business, also took part in the phone survey. He tells Consumerist it was one of the most egregious examples of non-electoral push polling he’s seen in decades.
This was particularly true, says Rabb, when the survey transitioned to questions about demands Philadelphia could make of Comcast in the company’s renewed franchise agreement, and how these could increase costs for the company."

Comcast has confirmed that it has hired a "reputable third party, independent company" to conduct polls in the city, but has, rather unsurprisingly, been unable to provide an exact copy of the precise language used in the poll questions. Of course, in a few weeks the findings will be trotted out by city leaders as a shining example of Comcast's sterling reputation, and Philadelphia city leaders will likely grant Comcast a very cozy new franchise agreement that helps cement the cable giant's monopoly power in the city for another decade.

The City of Philadelphia does not want you to know in which neighborhoods the Philadelphia Police Department (PPD) is focusing their use of powerful automatic license plate readers (ALPR), nor do they want disclosed the effectiveness (or lack thereof) of this technology, as they continue to fight a Declaration public records request filed in January with MuckRock News.

City officials argue in their response that every metro driver is under investigation, in an effort to exempt so-called criminal investigatory records from release under PA’s Right-to-Know Act:

Moreover, records “relating to or resulting in a criminal investigation” are exempt from disclosure under the Act, in particular “[i]nvestigative materials, notes, correspondence, videos and reports.” 65 P.S. § 67.708(b)(16)(ii). Such individual license plate readings and accompanying information are investigative materials that relate to individual criminal investigations, and, as your request indicates, these investigations may result in vehicle stops, arrests, or other police actions. Therefore, the individual license plate reading data is exempt from disclosure under the Act.

Investigative reporter Dustin Slaughter and The Philly Declaration have been battling the city for access to two weeks of raw ALPR output and, after multiple appeals, have been told every scan is exempt because every scan is part of a criminal investigation. This bizarre claim echoes the Los Angeles Police Department's public records request-thwarting declaration: all scans are, and always will be, tied to investigations.

The Declaration is seeking this data to see if deployment patterns signal any sort of bias or prejudicial treatment. What it has managed to pry free from law enforcement are the following facts: At least 10 ALPRs are in steady use. Non-hit data is retained for a year. Data actually related to investigations is held indefinitely. (Which would mean -- if the PD's stated logic holds -- that all scans are held indefinitely...)

The PD did hand over some summary data "pertaining to the time period requested," but it must have grabbed the wrong figures or misread Dustin Slaughter's request. He asked for data for a two-week period (Jan. 1-14, 2015). These are the numbers the PD handed over.

While it's theoretically possible 22 million plates could be scanned in two weeks, there's no way the Philly PD racked up 81,197 read hours during that time period, even if distributed across multiple vehicles. If this is a two-week period summary, the PD would need 241 units running 24 hours a day to hit the quoted "read hours."

But even if these numbers are a lifetime summary of the the ALPR program, they're still pretty impressive… at least in terms of scanning efficiency.

The department launched its ALPR program in or around 2011, according to Newsworks’ reporter Tom MacDonald.

This means the department is raking in around 7 million scans per year. On the other hand, if 22 million scans have only generated 19 felony arrests, you have to start wondering about the return-on-investment -- something that doesn't exactly back up Commissioner Charles Ramsey's claim that the ALPRs are "highly effective crime fighting tools." While it's nice to see the department is recovering around 140 stolen vehicles every year, it's a bit more disheartening to hear that it's only led to 28 total arrests -- especially when it considers every single one of these 22 million scans to be part of criminal investigations.

Roger Vanderklok, a distance runner who frequently flies to events around the country, had the misfortune of passing through TSA supervisor Charles Kieser's turf at the Philadelphia airport. Vanderklok faced some legitimate questions (as legitimate as any questions based on the ever-shifting TSA list of suspicious items can be, anyway) and answered them all satisfactorily.

On this day, he was headed to Miami. In his carry-on bag was a packet of PowerBars and a heart-monitoring watch. When the bag went through the X-ray scanner, the items looked suspicious to a TSA agent whom Kieser supervises.

For the next 30 minutes, screeners checked the bag several times. Vanderklok told them that a tube-shaped case in the bag contained his watch. Then he was asked if his bag contained "organic matter." Vanderklok said no, as he thought "organic matter" meant fruits or vegetables.

PowerBars, which contain milk, grain and sugar, are considered "organic matter" and can resemble a common explosive. Terrorists often use a small electronic device, like a watch, to detonate the explosive. Hence the agent's concern.

But the TSA's Charles Kieser took issue with Vanderklok's suggestion: that agents make it a bit more clear what "organic matter" entails. Keiser decided Vanderklok didn't appreciate the severity of the situation (that situation being, apparently, that the TSA makes suggestions, not the other way around). According to Vanderklok's lawsuit [pdf link], Kieser became "confrontational." Vanderklok then asked if he could file a complaint. Bad move.

Instead, Kieser summoned the Philadelphia Police. Vanderklok was taken to an airport holding cell, and his personal belongings - including his phone - were confiscated while police "investigated" him.

Vanderklok was detained for three hours in the holding cell, missing his plane. Then he was handcuffed, taken to the 18th District at 55th and Pine and placed in another cell.

He says that no one - neither the police officers at the airport nor the detectives at the 18th - told him why he was there. He didn't find out until he was arraigned at 2 a.m. that he was being charged with "threatening the placement of a bomb" and making "terroristic threats."

Kieser provided his version of the story at Vanderklok's trial -- one that was mostly lies. He claimed Vanderklok "threatened" to bring a bomb through security. He also claimed Vanderklok made aggressive arm movements and pointed his finger in Keiser's face. Unfortunately for Kieser, surveillance footage proved nearly every accusation false.

Throughout the search, Vanderklok appears calm. His laptop computer is tucked under his arms and his hands are clasped in front of him the entire time. Without any fuss, he follows TSA agents when they move from one part of the screening area to another. He even smiles a little.

Not once does he raise his hands. Not once does he point a finger in Kieser's face. If anyone is becoming agitated, the video shows, it is Kieser.

And as for the only claim that might have held up -- the "bomb threat" -- Keiser's own words on the police statement, as well as his underlings' actions, undercut that assertion as well. No agent other than Kieser appears to be the least bit alarmed by Vanderklok's alleged bomb threat. One messes with his cellphone. Another rearranges bins. No passengers are prevented from entering the area.

In his statement to the police, Kieser claims Vanderklok said "Anyone could bring a bomb through here and you wouldn't know it." That's not a threat. That's an opinion. And, given the TSA's track record on stopping airborne terrorists, the protected opinion/non-threat comes disturbingly close to being a factual statement.

The presiding judge dismissed the charges against Vanderklok "within minutes" of Kieser's statements. Kieser's testimony must have been incredibly terrible, considering the judge never even bothered to view the video evidence that contradicted most of his claims. There must have been an obvious odor of vindictiveness permeating the courtroom during the TSA supervisor's statements. And it's that same respect-my-authority-or-else attitude that's likely going to cost the TSA some money.

Vanderklok has filed a lawsuit against the agency for his wrongful arrest, one that also names the Philly police department as co-defendants. Perhaps the video clearing Vanderklok will be seen during this court battle, or perhaps the agency will just settle quickly, rather than allow Kieser to further embarrass himself. And perhaps, Kieser will finally be out of a job. But for now, he still wields a level of power that far outpaces his ability to perform his duties in a credible and responsible manner.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>obviously,-the-'T'-stands-for-'Thug'https://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20150206/10504129938Mon, 29 Dec 2014 03:49:00 PSTPhiladelphia DA Drops Case Against Parents Whose House Was Seized Over A $40 Drug Sale By Their SonTim Cushinghttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20141222/10120729503/philadelphia-da-drops-case-against-parents-whose-house-was-seized-over-40-drug-sale-their-son.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20141222/10120729503/philadelphia-da-drops-case-against-parents-whose-house-was-seized-over-40-drug-sale-their-son.shtmlasset forfeiture laws and programs is finally having some effect. Last week, news arrived that the IRS was dismissing its case against a restaurant owner -- something that was triggered by three years of sub-$10,000 deposits rather than any evidence of criminal involvement or activity.

This week, it's Philadelphia's district attorney dropping a couple of suddenly toxic cases.

The Philadelphia District Attorney has dropped its efforts to seize the houses of two area families after their cases drew national and critical attention to the city’s use of asset forfeiture to seize citizens’ property.

The Institute for Justice, a public interest law firm, announced on Thursday morning that the Philadelphia D.A. was dropping its asset forfeiture cases against the homes of Christos Sourovelis and Doila Welch.

As C.J. Ciaramella reports, the case against Christos Sourovelis's home (notably, not against the Sourovelises themselves) was particularly weak. The home was seized solely because of a $40 drug sale by their son.

In Welch's case, her estranged husband was selling marijuana out of the house while she was mostly confined to a bed upstairs by her disability.

Philadelphia hauls in about $6 million a year from asset forfeiture, a program ostensibly aimed at curbing drug trafficking. Ciaramella points out that this total is greater than Brooklyn and Los Angeles combined. As is the case with any easily-abused program, it can quickly become too much of a "good" thing. What may have started as a way to cripple drug organizations has become a form of petty government theft.

A City Paper review of 100 cases from 2011 and 2012 found the median amount of cash seized by the District Attorney was only $178.

"The class-action lawyers are trying to portray today's events as some sort of victory. The truth is that we resolve most of our real estate forfeiture actions by agreement, just as we are doing here, and we have been doing that since long before this lawsuit was filed.

"We do it because the purpose of the forfeiture process is to protect public safety and relieve neighborhoods of rampant drug dealing."

Sure. And it has nothing to do with the rising public outcry over these easily-abused programs. Or the continuing class-action lawsuit against the city over asset forfeiture. The fact that the DA just gave up two homes the city could have easily kept is actually the admission of a small defeat. The ease with which the city can seize and liquidate assets is truly amazing, especially considering how hard those whose assets have been seized have to fight to regain control of their property.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>a man's home is his presumably guilty castlehttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20141222/10120729503Wed, 17 Sep 2014 14:38:00 PDTHow It's Supposed To Work: Twitter Sleuths Nab Hate Crime PerpsTimothy Geignerhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140917/05294328546/how-its-supposed-to-work-twitter-sleuths-nab-hate-crime-perps.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140917/05294328546/how-its-supposed-to-work-twitter-sleuths-nab-hate-crime-perps.shtml
While we've covered several instances in the past of local law enforcement actually using Twitter and social media services productively in order to capture criminals, as opposed to when they use Twitter horribly, it's far more fun to show what a connected public can do on their own. There are plenty of examples of how crowd-sourcing police efforts to track down the bad guys can go horribly wrong (ahem, Boston Marathon bombing), but this is the story of how it can also work quite well.

The crime was an attack on two gay men who were simply walking down the street in Philadelphia when a large group of men and women approached them, harassed them, and eventually beat them savagely enough that one of the victims had to have his jaw wired shut. Then, because one good evil turn deserves another, they robbed one of the victims as well. While such brutality may bring on depression, take heart, for the local people were outraged and actively took to social media sites to voice their concern. Local police smartly released surveillance footage of the attack, with pictures of the assailants:

Twitter user fansince09 told Action News he was disgusted by the attack. Apparently many of his followers were, too, and they joined in the effort. Fansince09 tweeted the video to his thousands of followers, and soon re-tweeted a picture apparently taken of this group at a nearby restaurant. He looked on Facebook to see who had checked into that restaurant, and started clicking links, matching pictures to the video. His effort resulted in a picture of a large party dining at a Center City restaurant. Police sources say that photograph is now part of the investigation.

If you'd like to follow how the whole thing unfolded on Twitter, here's a great rundown put together by Melody Kramer, which we've also embedded below.

The police even gave him a shout out on Twitter to say thanks. Those responsible for the crime are reportedly now in touch with their attorneys and are making arrangements to turn themselves in to the authorities. As someone living in a metropolitan city, I can't even begin to tell you how often these types of attacks go unpunished, so it's good to see social media working to get a little justice done.

Nicely done, Philly.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>smhhttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20140917/05294328546Mon, 10 Mar 2014 11:13:00 PDTPhilly Court Orders Website To Unmask Anonymous Commenter 'Named' In Defamation Suit [Update]Tim Cushinghttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140308/12472826497/philly-court-orders-website-to-unmask-anonymous-commenter-named-defamation-suit-update.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140308/12472826497/philly-court-orders-website-to-unmask-anonymous-commenter-named-defamation-suit-update.shtml
Anonymous commenters are often held up as examples of the worst aspects of the internet. It's an enabler of abhorrent behavior, as the lack of identification allows people to make statements without suffering consequences. Of course, this isn't the only "benefit" of anonymity, but it's the one that gets the most press, so to speak.

A Philadelphia judge has ordered the owners of Philly.com - who also own The Inquirer and the Philadelphia Daily News - to disclose the identity of a person who posted a comment online.

The ruling came in a defamation suit filed by John J. Dougherty, the powerful head of Local 98 of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers.

In October 2012, Dougherty sued over a comment posted two months earlier on a Daily News blog that described a public feud involving Dougherty. The comment identified Dougherty by his well-known nickname, "Johnny Doc," and called him "the pedophile."

Philly.com apparently has more than just an IP address on hand. (Or just did a minimum amount of research -- more on that below.) The report notes that Philly.com contacted the anonymous poster to make sure "he or she got notice of the lawsuit and hired a lawyer." The anonymous poster (screen name: "fbpdplt") has, so far, maintained his/her anonymity during the legal proceedings and is being represented by Philip L. Blackman, who claims the specified comment isn't "defamation per se."

As you'll note, Philly.com made contact with the anonymous commenter, something the plaintiff should have done. A "good faith effort" by the party bringing the suit is supposedly required according to the Dendrite rules, (which Pennsylvania courts have adopted in modified form) but as I detail below, it looks as if little to no effort was made by Dougherty or his legal team to track down the person behind the screen name "fbpdplt." Dougherty did at least specify which comment ("the pedophile") was actionable and presumably presented some evidence to the contrary, but it appears the court made no real attempt to balance the commenter's First Amendment rights versus the plaintiff's complaint before deciding unmasking was the only way to handle this.

Philip Blackman has pointed this out, claiming the court's actions threaten his client's free speech. Defamation isn't protected by the First Amendment, but whether the comment actually is defamatory still hasn't been decided. On the other side of the legal fence, Joe Pedraza, attorney for John Dougherty, feels this is a forgone conclusion.

In the Dougherty case, the union leader's lawyers contended that he had a defamation claim likely to succeed at trial but no way of communicating with or identifying the person being sued.

Right or wrong, Philly.com did at least put up a fight. It turned down Dougherty's subpoena, stating it would only reveal the commenter's information with a court order. The order itself is fairly expansive, not only asking for identifying info, but also for all comments posted by "fbpdplt" from August 2012 thru January 2014. (Apparently, only one comment is currently being referred to as defamatory.)

But you have to wonder why any of this is necessary. Did anyone on Dougherty's legal team even bother searching around for the person behind the "nonsense" screen name "fbpdplt?"

As you can see, fbpdplt's profile uses a fireman's hat, something the screen name hints at. fbpdplt also left this comment reviewing the Philadelphia Fire Department, which seems to indicate he's an insider [the comment is only visible in the text-only archive]:

under a lot of strain They have been doing more with less for years. Lip service from politicians and no support from IAFF or the so called union brotherhood…

This would appear to be the post where fbpdplt called John Dougherty a "pedophile." (The date on it is August 10,2012, matching up with Philly.com's narrative -- contacted in October 2012 about a post from "two months earlier".) There are currently no comments on the post. But there was at one time. Searching "fbpdplt johnny doc" brings up this post on the first page, meaning that at some point, the comment was there to be cataloged by Google. The Wayback Machine is no help, suggesting Philly.com has had it removed from there as well. Adjacent posts from the same month are archived, meaning there's no sitewide block on the Internet Archive's crawler.

Using site specific searches for "fbpdplt" only brings up a short list of comments on various Philly entities and services at Philly.com (and no hits at all at its other sites, Inquirer.com and phillydailynews.com), but no comments on news articles or blog posts. The only comments showing up in search results are hidden from readers, accessible only through archived, text-only versions.

So, it would appear that Philly.com scrubbed its site of fbpdplt's presence after being notified of his allegedly defamatory comment. Not exactly innocuous behavior. The question is why it would do this. It's not a named party in the lawsuit and Section 230 protects it from being held accountable for third-party content. It looks, sadly, like a panicked move to clean up its image in the wake of being served a subpoena.

Seeing an anonymous commenter go down for posting possibly defamatory comments usually prompts cheers from those who consider online anonymity to be only the tool of trolls and jackasses. But an attack on anonymity also threatens those who have good reason to withhold their identity -- or just feel more comfortable not making their personal info available for every commenting system that comes knocking. It also pushes site owners to move towards requiring Facebook or Twitter connections for all commenters.

Beyond all that, this appears to be a very sloppy case. The plaintiff's legal team apparently made only a minimum of effort made to uncover the anonymous (but not really) commenter before deciding to pursue subpoenas and court orders. Philly.com's comment scrubbing efforts were not only unnecessary, but give the appearance of covering up evidence. John Dougherty has now been provided a name, but it's up to his legal rep to prove the comment was defamatory. Proving damages will be even tougher, unless Dougherty's team is willing to advance the notion that an anonymous online commenter is capable of influencing the opinion of a great many Philly.com readers, which seems unlikely to say the least.

As I told him, some of my assertions were related to my misreading of a key aspect of the case. I thought the defendant hadn't been notified until the court ordered Philly.com to reveal the commenter's identity. In fact, the commenter had been notified nearly a year ago, when Philly.com was first hit with the subpoena. That misreading led to me questioning the court's application of the Dendrite rules and, of course, that misguided thought also bore its own weight on the remainder of the post.

Levy's post rightly asserts that it's very dangerous (and irresponsible) to draw too many conclusions from a dearth of information, as I did here. He also warns against automatically assuming the demand to strip anonymity is also an attack on free speech. Clearly defamatory comments/libel per se aren't protected by any stretch of the First Amendment and free speech defenders need to steer clear of presenting a "sky is falling" scenario when the facts available don't actually suggest that.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>not all that 'anonymous' once you start lookinghttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20140308/12472826497Thu, 17 Oct 2013 13:57:56 PDTExperience Stop And Frisk Thanks To This POV VideoTimothy Geignerhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20131014/04345724861/experience-stop-frisk-thanks-to-this-pov-video.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20131014/04345724861/experience-stop-frisk-thanks-to-this-pov-video.shtmlrecord public servants, particularly law enforcement officers, and the complete travesty known as stop and frisk. While that program is perhaps most infamous in New York, the basis for it is a court case, Terry v. Ohio, and that has been the groundwork for similar law enforcement policies throughout the country. Included in that is the city of Philadelphia, where we are able to see and hear firsthand a stop by two officers that all began when someone said hello to a stranger. Here's the entire video.

In case you can't view or would just like highlights, two men were stopped by police, according to the officers, because they said hello to a stranger and people just don't do that. So now we're outlawing being polite? Outstanding. It gets worse from there.

"I didn't accuse you of anything, can you hear? I said we could have got a call that somebody wearing the clothes that you're wearing just robbed someone, that's why we stopped you, so is that wrong of us?"

Well, gee, officer, in that completely hypothetical that you aren't confirming actually happened, that would not be wrong. But that isn't what was said initially. Instead, the stop occurred because of so-called suspicious activity that consisted of someone saying hello to another person. A stop due to a BOLO (be on the lookout) probably wouldn't have started with questioning suspects about saying hello.

"You're under investigation right now"

"Investigation of what? I was walking."

"That's not what I saw"

"I was walking."

"You're gonna be in violation if you keep running your mouth when I split your wig open."

I'm pretty sure we have a right to remain silent, not a requirement to under penalty of a split wig, whatever the hell that is. Further, as the video continues with threats for taking the men in for "running" their mouth illustrates wonderfully how far outside the bounds of serving and protecting these two esteemed officers went.

If you can stomach the video all the way through, you end up hearing the officers admit these two gentlemen did nothing wrong and would be let go, offered up via an extremely patronizing admission that they're "good guys." Without the right to record, not only would the abhorrent actions of the officers be subject to review, but those more privileged in life like myself might not understand that complete humiliation and unfairness involved in randomly stopping people without any reasonable suspicion wrong-doing. Stop and frisk and its cousin programs need to go the way of the dodo now.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>a-mile-in-their-shoeshttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20131014/04345724861Mon, 7 Oct 2013 19:50:44 PDTNews Anchor Does Twitter Wrong: Teases Homicide Story Referencing Breaking BadTimothy Geignerhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20131007/04184224778/news-anchor-does-twitter-wrong-teases-homicide-story-referencing-breaking-bad.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20131007/04184224778/news-anchor-does-twitter-wrong-teases-homicide-story-referencing-breaking-bad.shtml
We all know that companies will occasionally use social media in a way that just comes off as wrong, either intentionally or not. For instance, one pizzeria's friendly promotion for free pie is another feminist league's gross attempt to view women's breasts. The point is that in a world that is more connected than ever, in which social media attempts can go viral quickly for reasons good or bad, a corporation had damned well better get the message right or risk the consequences.

One would think that news organizations and their employees, already adept at writing headlines, would be proficient in this. One would not, however, always be right in that regard. Take the example of a Fox News employee, Joyce Evans, who tweeted the following to followers of the local Philadelphia station:

Your reaction range ought to be somewhere between cringe and laugh, depending on how dark your sense of humor is. Teasing a story in which multiple people were shot using that kind of terminology is something you just don't do. At the very least, those involved in the story are going to be outraged. More likely, you're going to outrage a good portion of those not involved who don't think that conflating entertainment with the real-life harm of a multiple shooting is something news companies should be doing.

So, as you'd imagine, the properly chastised Evans issued a sincere apology. Just kidding, she doubled down on her ignorance.

Last tweet NOT AST ALL A JOKE. Very real life drama was the point as oppose to one that end on tv. That was my point

— Joyce Evans (@JoyceEvansFox29) October 7, 2013

Mmm, no. Your point was that the story was "hot" in the same entertaining way as a fictional show. And nobody is buying the BS, either. Welcome to social media, Joyce!

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>hot-hot-hothttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20131007/04184224778Thu, 29 Mar 2012 14:51:56 PDTYet Another Story Of A Guy Arrested For Filming PoliceMike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120328/04442118275/yet-another-story-guy-arrested-filming-police.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120328/04442118275/yet-another-story-guy-arrested-filming-police.shtmlarrested for filming or photographing the police while they're doing their job in public. This is pretty ridiculous, and thankfully courts have started to make it clear that this is a First Amendment violation. Of course, we also just had the story of the city of Boston having to pay $170,000 to one of the people it arrested for filming them. And yet, the message still hasn't reached the police, who seem to keep on arresting people for pointing a camera in their general direction.

JJ sent over a ridiculous story from Philadelphia where a Temple student was arrested for photographing the police, which he actually did as part of his photojournalism class, where he had a "night-photography" assignment. When he saw the police pull someone over near where he lived, he went over with his camera and started taking pictures. What happened next seems positively ridiculous:

As Van Kuyk tells it, he grabbed his camera and began taking photos of the occurrence. After being told to move away from the scene, Van Kuyk distanced himself but continued to take photos, he said. However, an officer soon after demanded Van Kuyk to stop taking photos, he said.

“He was pushing me, and I kept taking pictures and he didn’t like it, and he…got real aggressive and threw me to the ground,” Van Kuyk said.

When his girlfriend, Meghan Feighan, tried to pick up the camera, she was arrested and held for nearly 18 hours, he said. Van Kuyk was arrested and held for nearly 24 hours.

The National Press Photographers Association sent a letter to the police commissioner decrying this behavior, noting that just a few months ago, the commissioner, Charles Ramsey, had actually sent out a memo to police officers, reminding them that they can be "photographed, videotaped or audibly recorded" when in public.

Unfortunately, that hasn't stopped the prosecution of these two individuals from moving forward. The girlfriend agreed to "settle" her case, paying $200 and agreeing to 12 hours of community service, for daring to pick up her boyfriend's camera after he'd been shoved to the ground. However, Van Kuyk is still facing charges -- including one potential felony charge for "hindering apprehension." One hopes that the court here agrees with the appeals court in Boston. Either that, or the prosecutors in Philly learn about the $170,000 Boston just had to pay out...

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>when-will-they-learnhttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120328/04442118275Wed, 18 May 2011 12:45:38 PDTPhilly Police Harass, Threaten To Shoot Man Legally Carrying Gun; Then Charge Him With Disorderly Conduct For Recording ThemMike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110518/02405714314/philly-police-harass-threaten-to-shoot-man-legally-carrying-gun-then-charge-him-with-disorderly-conduct-recording-them.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110518/02405714314/philly-police-harass-threaten-to-shoot-man-legally-carrying-gun-then-charge-him-with-disorderly-conduct-recording-them.shtmldangerous situation that shouldn't be allowed, we get a striking example of just how important that right is at times. Julian Sanchez points us to a story of a guy in Philadelphia, who had a license to carry a firearm in a city where it's legal to openly carry a firearm -- but who ran into a police officer who apparently did not understand his city's own laws:

On a mild February afternoon, Fiorino, 25, decided to walk to an AutoZone on Frankford Avenue in Northeast Philly with the .40-caliber Glock he legally owns holstered in plain view on his left hip. His stroll ended when someone called out from behind: "Yo, Junior, what are you doing?"

What happened next would be hard to believe, except that Fiorino audio-recorded all of it: a tense, profanity-laced, 40-minute encounter with cops who told him that what he was doing - openly carrying a gun on the city's streets - was against the law.

"Do you know you can't openly carry here in Philadelphia?" Dougherty asked, according to the YouTube clip.

"Yes, you can, if you have a license to carry firearms," Fiorino said. "It's Directive 137. It's your own internal directive."

It gets worse and worse. Dougherty threatens to shoot Fiorino for trying to show him his license:

Fiorino offered to show Dougherty his driver's and firearms licenses. The cop told him to get on his knees.

"Excuse me?" Fiorino said.

"Get down on your knees. Just obey what I'm saying," Dougherty said.

"Sir," Fiorino replied, "I'm more than happy to stand here -"

"If you make a move, I'm going to f------ shoot you," Dougherty snapped. "I'm telling you right now, you make a move, and you're going down!"

"Is this necessary?" Fiorino said.

Other cops show up and they continue to curse at him and scream at him, while he calmly responds to their claims. They discover that he has a recording device in his pocket, and they go even more ballistic, telling him he broke the law with that as well. Eventually, they finally realize that he wasn't breaking the law with the gun and let him go... But once he posted the audio on YouTube, suddenly the District Attorney took renewed interest in the case, and charged him with "reckless endangerment and disorderly conduct," claiming that he refused to cooperate with police. If you listen to the tapes, it's hard to see how anyone could make that claim with a straight face. It seems pretty clear, from the beginning, that it's the police who were recklessly endangering someone and who were disorderly in how they dealt with Fiorino.

No matter what your opinion is on guns or open carry rules, it's hard to see how this guy deserves the treatment he received from police who clearly did not understand the law in their own city -- and it's even more ridiculous to see him facing a (trumped up) charge, after he uploaded the audio. It seems like a pretty clear case of vindictive prosecution, even as part of the issue is that the very thing that pissed off law enforcement is precisely what proves this guy was perfectly reasonable throughout the encounter.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>lovelyhttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110518/02405714314Mon, 23 Aug 2010 14:46:00 PDTPhiladelphia Demanding Business License For Bloggers Who Bring In A Bit Of CashMike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100823/10234910740.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100823/10234910740.shtmldemand that hobby bloggers get a business license if they've made any revenue at all. Not if they've made profit, but revenue. So, any blog that has Google ads and brings in a couple pennies could be required to get a business license. To make matters worse, the city has been relying on the fact that some of these bloggers are honest and reported the tiny bit of revenue they made, in order to send them demand letters that they go register for a business license. Nice way to convince people (a) not to blog and (b) not to bother with Philly. It really is amazing how confused various governments are in an internet age where it's easy for lots of people to make little bits of money on the side. They simply can't figure out that such things are not a "business." We've seen the same thing in the past with various local governments demanding that folks selling on eBay need to get an auctioneer's license. And then some people wonder why citizens are fed up with their government representatives?

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>well-isn't-that-nicehttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100823/10234910740Thu, 18 Feb 2010 12:30:02 PSTPhilly City Council Members Want To Sue Facebook And Twitter Over Flash Mob Snowball FightMike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100218/0236398221.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100218/0236398221.shtmlthreatening to sue Twitter and Facebook. Seriously. Two city council members say that those companies deserve some of the blame and a lawsuit is an option:

"While [the kids] certainly owe this city an apology and deserve to be punished under the fullest extent of the law, we believe that social media outlets should also bear some of the blame." The letter, written by council members Frank DiCicco and James F. Kenney, explains that this is the second such time a band of mischievous teens has formed via social media and went on to destroy property. "We believe that the lack of monitoring of these sites allows for mass, organized riots to occur."

Hopefully someone explains to these two council members that both sites are certainly protected from liability under Section 230 of the CDA. But, more importantly, beyond just invoking those safe harbors, can someone explain to them how silly it is to blame a communication tool for how it's used? Do they want to sue the phone company when criminals use phones to plan their crimes? Do they threaten to sue the car companies when a car is used in a crime? Furthermore, if their complaint is that these sites failed to "monitor" what people were planning, then isn't the city council actually even more to blame? The content of Twitter is available to the public, and these days much of Facebook is as well (and info on such a flashmob would almost certainly be public). Then shouldn't Philadelphia officials be aware of what's being planned in their own city? Based on the reasoning of DiCicco and Kenney, perhaps they should be suing themselves for failing to monitor what kids in their city were planning on some very public forums.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>section-230https://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100218/0236398221Mon, 10 Aug 2009 05:01:10 PDTWhat's A Big City Without A Newspaper? Still A Big City Last I CheckedMike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090809/1525445819.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090809/1525445819.shtmlWhat's a Big City Without a Newspaper? To be honest, there's not much to say about it. The article itself sort of meanders around, and doesn't make much of a point. Sokolove is wistful for the "good old days" and hopes that there's a future for newspapers. He dips his toes into some of the new experiments out there to cover the news, and spends a lot of time with the guy who is currently CEO of the bankrupt big Philly newspapers. The article doesn't really break any new ground. There are a few times when it seems to falsely assume that only newspaper reporters are real reporters (though, at other times it doesn't make this mistake). About the only really noteworthy thing is that the guy who runs the Philadelphia Daily News and the Philadelphia Inquirer, Brian Tierney, seems to be a bit clueless about economics -- which doesn't bode well for the two papers:

As soon as possible, he wants to begin charging for online content. As he told me this, he banged a bagel on a conference table, which sounded like a rock as it hit. "You hear that?" This bagel stinks, he said. "It's got the same consistency inside and out, but if you went down to our cafeteria, it costs like $1.25. That's what people pay for stuff like this, so you mean to tell me I can't get them to pay that for online access to all the incredible stuff in The Inquirer and Daily News online? People who say that all this content wants to be free aren't paying talented people to create it."

As any first year econ student would tell Tierney, the reason people are willing to pay $1.25 for a stale bagel is because they really don't have another easy choice. To get a better bagel would mean having to leave the building and head out somewhere further away that isn't nearly as convenient. But online there are other options. Loads and loads and loads of other options -- all only a click away. If his cafeteria had 1,000 different bagel suppliers all competing to sell their bagels, he'd discover that the bagels would be both a lot cheaper and a lot better tasting. And those who thought they could get away with charging $1.25 for a crappy bagel would soon go out of business. Update: Ha! After writing this, I discovered that King Kaufman wrote basically the same thing.

Oh, and then he also seems to believe that there's something special about newsprint that makes it more suitable for reporting than the web, but he fails to explain what that is, other than "brawn."

"We do the brawny work," Tierney said, sounding like the C.E.O. of some smokestack industry. "The Web efforts, they add something. I congratulate them. Let a thousand flowers bloom. But if somebody thinks in any short term, or even medium term, that the answers are those things, they're kidding themselves. I know I sound like a heretic in that I won't come out and say, 'They're the future." But they're not. The brawny work is what we're doing, and the brawny vehicle to carry it is the printed product."

I'm not against newsprint -- if someone could come up with a way to make it really add more value. I've talked about magazines making their print product more valuable, and I'm sure a creative newspaper could do it too. But claiming that newsprint is better because it carries "brawny work" doesn't seem like a particularly compelling explanation. It sounds like someone pining for a past that isn't returning. There's no vision there. There's only someone insisting that things must be a certain way because that's the way it is. The world, unfortunately, doesn't work that way.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>it-ain't-the-newspaper,-it's-the-newshttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090809/1525445819Wed, 11 Jun 2008 22:32:00 PDTWhat's Wrong With Putting A Fake Ad In A Newspaper?Mike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080610/1705501369.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080610/1705501369.shtmlDerrie-Air that had a unique selling point: pay what you weigh. Different routes had different prices that were all per pound. The idea was that the lighter you (and your luggage) were, the less you would have to pay. The only thing is that the airline doesn't actually exist (which I assume anyone with a very slight knowledge of the French language could probably figure out from the name of the airline).

So why did the newspapers do this? It was actually as a test, to see how well advertisements in the paper could drive people to a website. The whole thing sounds like a good (and funny) way to test that out. But, of course, any time you trick some people, someone's going to get upset -- and that's exactly what's happening. Suddenly people are charging the company with some sort of ethical lapse for not making it clear the ad was fake. Of course, if they did that, the whole purpose of the ad would have been lost.

Plus, it's difficult to see what the "harm" is. If a few people thought it was real, they would quickly be disabused of that notion, with no harm done. The people complaining that this would somehow make people trust the news in the paper less apparently haven't been paying attention to the various reporting scandals over the past few years. People have plenty of reasons not to trust the news that they read. Seeing a fake (and mildly amusing) ad in a paper isn't going to make them trust the newspapers any less.